No abstract

Expeditious yet efficacious removal of skin tumors is a common responsibility for the plastic surgeon. The need to minimize potential risks for mortality or morbidity from undue or excessive surgical resections and to control costs by avoiding unnecessary procedures behooves us to make a precise clinical diagnosis preceding any decision even for such "minor" surgery. Just how accurate these decisions can be expected to be for a typical surgical practice was scrutinized by means of this prospective 4-year study involving the resection of 2058 skin lesions. Each lesion was initially assigned a clinical diagnosis after a brief gross examination and then compared with the pathology report, which was always considered to be the correct answer. Within these parameters, only 65 percent of all tumors were identified correctly preoperatively. Two-thirds of all lesions were benign. Three-quarters of benign lesions were as assumed, and 92 percent of all presumed benign lesions were benign even if incorrectly identified initially, whereas fortunately only 3 percent proved to be malignant. On the other hand, only three-fifths of malignant lesions were identified correctly clinically, yet only 11 percent were benign, implying that most such lesions properly deserved excision anyway. Therefore, approximately 90 percent of all lesions whether benign or malignant were removed appropriately without compromising the patient, but to expect a clinical acumen of 100 percent in this setting may not be realistic. The accuracy of the surgeon in identifying lesions as probably benign was certainly high enough that cost-containment mechanisms designed to deny authorization for their removal probably would be justifiable and difficult to appeal. Any suspicious or equivocal lesions still will require mandatory intervention despite such constraints, because often only histologic examination will allow a definitive diagnosis.

Even with a precise preoperative diagnosis, complete excision of nonmelanoma skin cancer is not always achieved. The conundrum remains the decision for appropriate secondary treatment. Many surgeons, regardless of the nature of the lesion, consider re-excision to be the only option. In a prior 4-year prospective study that ascertained the accuracy of our clinical diagnosis of skin lesions removed in an office setting, one-fifth were found to be malignant and 98 percent (n = 415) of the lesions were nonmelanoma skin cancer. Unfortunately, 65 (15.7 percent) of the malignant nonmelanoma skin cancer lesions had positive margins. The outcome of our management for these specific lesions was followed prospectively over the 7.5 years of this study to determine whether aggressive surgical intervention was justified in every case. Of 65 patients with lesions, early and complete re-excision of margin-positive nonmelanoma skin cancer was performed for 34 (52.3 percent), with residual tumor found in 11 (32.4 percent), followed by a later recurrence in one (2.9 percent). The remaining 31 patients agreed to semiannual office visits, with one (3.2 percent) recurrence in this group. Thus, the overall rate of recurrence for margin-positive nonmelanoma skin cancer was 3.1 percent, with a mean follow-up of 3.6 years (range, 0 to 7.5 years). There were no recurrences for basal cell carcinoma in either treatment group, suggesting that, at least for "simple" primary lesions without confounding risk factors, there is some validity to a "wait and see" attitude, in which treatment of a potential recurrence would be straightforward. Despite our observed infrequent local recurrences of squamous cell cancers (13.3 percent), the small risk of metastases still suggests the appropriateness of complete surgical eradication for these tumors whenever feasible.